IOP Conference Series: Materials

Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Opinion dynamics in two dimensions:
A study on the enforcement strategy for safety and domain coarsening leads to stable bi-
polarization and anomalous scaling
health compliance in manufacturing sector in exponents
F Velásquez-Rojas and F Vazquez

Malaysia - Future environmental and agricultural

impacts of Brazil’s Forest Code
Aline C Soterroni, Aline Mosnier,
To cite this article: Ramli Hassan et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 788 012032 Alexandre X Y Carvalho et al.

- The importance of national political context

to the impacts of international
conservation aid: evidence from the W
National Parks of Benin and Niger
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Daniel C Miller, Michael Minn and Brice
Sinsin

This content was downloaded from IP address 175.143.81.71 on 09/03/2024 at 04:16

ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

A study on the enforcement strategy for safety and health

compliance in manufacturing sector in Malaysia

Ramli Hassan1, *, Ahmad Rasdan Ismail2 and Nor Kamilah Makhtar3

1
Department of Occupational Safety and Health, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Creative Technology and Heritage, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan,
Malaysia
3
Teachers’ Education Institute, Kota Bharu, Malaysia

*Corresponding author: ramli_h@mohr.gov.my

Abstract. Safety and health aspect should always be part of manufacturing system so that every
stage of the manufacturing process and activities will expose no risk to more than a millions
workers involved in this sector. In Malaysia, manufacturing sector is under the jurisdiction of
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (OSHA) and Factory and Machinery Act 1967 (FMA)
which are enforced by the Department of Occupational and Health (DOSH). The objective of
the study is to study the enforcement strategy carried out by DOSH officers whether it is
persuasive, punitive or combination of both. Persuasion and punishment refer to the type of
action taken by the enforcement officers against the errand employers. Making remarks in a log
book, giving out directive letters and issuing notices (Notice of Prohibition, NOI and Notice of
Improvement, NOP) are considered persuasive whilst opening an investigation paper (IP) for the
purpose of offering compound and bringing the matter to court are considered punitive. The
study depends on DOSH’s statistic i.e. OSH enforcement activities and action taken by its
officers against errand employers during enforcement activities. The statistic shows that DOSH
use both persuasion and punishment strategies during occupational safety and health (OSH)
enforcement activities, but the use of persuasion is too glaring i.e. as much as 98.5% from the
total number of actions taken against errand employers.

Keywords. Safety and Health; Compliances; Persuasive; Punitive; Strategies; Enforcement;

Manufacturing

1. Introduction
Malaysian economy has transformed from an agricultural economy to industrial based economy since
early 1980s when it embarked to be an industrialization country. Since then, manufacturing sector began
to grow rapidly and has become the engine of economic growth in Malaysia. According to the
Department of Statistics Malaysia, until March 2019, a total of 1,087,760 persons are engaged in the
local manufacturing sector [1].
To keep Malaysian manufacturing sector on the right track in term of competitiveness and reliability,
the manufacturing system has to protect its most valuable asset i.e. its manpower. This simply means
that, it has to ensure the safety and health of 1,087,760 workers in the sector. Ensuring safety and health
of workers is very important because accidents at work will greatly affect the economy, the workers and

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

their families [2]. Injuries, occupational disease or death will cause a big loss to a company and will
decrease productivity [3].
Legal action is one of the important measures in order to ensure safety and health and therefore
prevent accident and occupational disease at workplace [4]. In Malaysia, the duty of care to provide the
safe and healthy workplace is clearly spelled out in the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
1994 in Section 15(1),
“It shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person to ensure, so far as is
practicable, the safety, health and welfare at work of all his employees” [5].
Besides OSHA, Factories and Machinery Act 1967 (FMA) also states provision compulsory for
employers in order to ensure safety, health and welfare of workers at workplace [6].
It is very important to make safety and health aspect as part of manufacturing system so that hazards
present in every stage of the manufacturing process will be identified and risk associated with it will be
assessed and subsequently control measures will be put in place so that no accident will occur [7].
Apart from OSHA Section 15, Section 20 stated the general duties of manufacturers alongside with
designers, importers and suppliers to ensure their plant for use at work, so far as is practicable, is safe
and without risk to health. Also in Section 21, OSHA further stated the duty of manufacturers alongside
with formulators, importers and suppliers for the safe and without risk of the substance used [5].

2. Safety and health in manufacturing sector in Malaysia

The words ‘safety’ and ‘health’ have their own distinctive meanings but they are dependent on each
other [8]. Occupational safety is providing workers with means to protect them from physical accident
[7], [9] by eliminating situation which has a potential to cause harm [7], [10], whereas occupational
health concerns about workers well-being related to his job and is involved with occupational
cleanliness, occupational psychology, safety, physiotherapy, ergonomics etc. [11], [12]. Safety and
health come together and related to each other, therefore it is a holistic approach towards workers’ well-
being at work [13].

Figure 1. National accident rate from 2004 – 2016 (Source: SOCSO).

Figure 1 shows national accident rate from 2004 until 2016. It shows fatality rate (per 100,000
workers) and Accident Rate (per 1,000 workers) and also total number of industrial accident. In that
period, fatality rate has dropped 32.5% i.e. from 7.17 to 4.84 for every 100,000 workers. Whereas,
Accident Rate has dropped 50.7% i.e. from 5.84 to 2.88 for every 1000 workers [14].
Table 1 shows that the number of reported accidents for the manufacturing sector has been the highest
in the 2012 to 2016 period. It also recorded an increase of 26.2% from 1,722 in 2012 to 2,333 in 2016.
This reflects that high risk of accident presents in manufacturing sector and the government must show
their high interest on such vulnerable employees in order to curb accidents [15].

2
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

Table 1. Industrial accidents reported by sectors from 2012 to 2016 (Source: DOSH).
Sector 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Manufacturing 1,722 1,655 1,667 2,040 2,333
Mining and Quarrying 42 35 62 39 25
Construction 177 164 172 237 233
Agriculture, Forestry, Logging and Fishery 446 535 492 480 471
Utility 94 108 70 96 75
Transport, Storage, Communication 95 93 102 131 130
Wholesale and Retail Trade 73 78 83 108 109
Hotel and Restaurant 15 20 57 62 90
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate, Business Services 62 71 74 119 126
Public Services, Statutory Bodies 54 67 26 32 110
Grand Total 2780 2826 2805 3344 3702

3. Enforcement Strategies: Punitive or Persuasive?

In Malaysia, OSHA and FMA are enforced by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health
(DOSH) under the Ministry of Human Resource. In exercising their power to enforce the law, DOSH
has both use persuasive and punitive strategies.
According to [16], enforcement officers usually use both persuasive and punitive strategies in
carrying out their task, however they use persuasion more than punishment which lead to very few
errand employers being penalised and the amount of the penalty is small too. This include for the
repeating offenders. According to [17];
“a conciliatory style is a form of “social repair and maintenance” designed “to ameliorate a bad
situation” whereas panel control “prohibits certain conduct, and enforces its prohibitions with
punishment”.
Overuse of persuasion instead of punishment will cause the same offence be repeated by some
employers [16]. According to [18], among strategies used by governments in the effort to make people
change their unpleasant attitude are by giving more relevant information, providing more facilities,
formulating regulations and giving out incentives. Maybe this is in the mind of certain law enforcers
when they consider to tackle a breach of OSH law by persuasion instead of punishment.
Study has shown that enforcement could bring down accident rate compared to consultancy [11].
However, there are still argument on which strategy is the best, persuasion or punishment? According
to [20], the objective of enforcement whether by persuasion or punishment is to get compliance to the
law from the party which the law is enforced upon. The consensus is that both strategies are the best
depending on the situation. They are both vital to bring down the accident rate depending on the current
situation [21]. However, it is important to consider what regulations need to be complied by the
employers before deciding on which strategy to use [20].
Punitive strategy is used in the hope that it will act as individual deterrence and general deterrence.
It will prevent the person who has committed the offence from repeating it and also other person who
has not yet committing the offence from doing it [22]. When an accident happened in a workplace, the
employer is prima facie liable to the accident as held by Stuart-Smith LJ in R v Associated Octel Co Ltd
[1994] 4 All ER 1051, 1063a:
“If there is a risk of injury to the health and safety of the persons not employed by the employer,
whether to the contractor’s men or members of the public, and, a fortiori, if there is actual injury as a

3
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

result of the conduct of that operation there is prima facie liability, subject to the defence of reasonable
practicability.” [23]
Despite the prima facie liability, many enforcement officers still in doubt as to whether to take punish
or to persuade the employers which accidents had occurred in their premises.
According to [24], prosecuting errand employers in court is a must because they have breached the
law. Table 2 shows offences that has been taken to court by DOSH against errands employers.
Table 2. Prosecution in court against errand employers.
No. Offences Section/Regulation, Act
Failure to establish Safety and Section 30(1), OSHA
1.
Health Committee. 1994.
Failure to appoint a Safety and Section 29(2), OSHA
2.
Health Officer. 1994.
Section 32(1), OSHA
3. Failure to notify accident.
1994.
Failure to establish Safe Operating Section 15(1), OSHA
4.
Procedures. 1994.
Failure to comply to Notice of Section 49(1), OSHA
5.
Prohibition (NOP). 1994.
Failure to inspect and maintain Section 17(1), OSHA
6.
scaffolding which lead to accident. 1994.

4. DOSH Enforcement Approach

It is a difficult task for a prosecutor to decide whether or not to prosecute someone [25]. DOSH has
come up with Enforcement Uniformity Module (EUM) in order to ease its officers in deciding what
action to be taken against errand employers. EUM basically stated that every enforcement action must
correspond to the associated risk and the seriousness of the law been breached [26]. DOSH action
towards any non-compliance by employers usually follow the hierarchy in figure 2.

Figure 2. Hierarchy of action taken by DOSH Malaysia.

Figure 2 shows the hierarchy of action usually taken by DOSH officer when conducting enforcement
or inspection at a place of work. At DOSH, all the 5 actions are called punitive action for the sake of

4
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

recording purposes (statistic), but as a matter of fact, the first 3 actions from the bottom of the pyramid
are persuasive in nature (i.e. remarks in log book, directive letters/surat arahan and notices) and the top
2 actions are the punishment (i.e. compound and prosecution in court).
Enforcement activities that were carried out by DOSH include approval and authorisation,
registration, certification, inspection, investigation and litigation. Among these activities, inspection and
investigation are very much in need of decision whether to use persuasive or punitive strategies. These
activities are shown in table 3 [27]. (Dosh website)
Figure 3 shows histogram of actions taken by DOSH in the year 2017 (until November) [27]. It shows
both the persuasive and punitive actions. The ratio of persuasive action (Surat arahan/Directive Letters
and Notices) to punitive action (compound and prosecution) is 50:1. This ratio clearly shows persuasion
is the choice of DOSH officers most of the time compared to punishment.

Figure 3. Action taken by DOSH Malaysia in 2017 (until Nov. 2017) (Source: DOSH 2017).

Table 3 and 4 show activities conducted by DOSH Malaysia in 2018 (until October) [27]. Table 3
shows the OSH enforcement activities done by DOSH are 278,278 and table 4 shows investigation
activities which are 6,711. Together, the total number of activities carried out by DOSH until October
2018 are 284,989.

Table 3. Enforcement activities of DOSH Malaysia in 2018 (until October).

Activity No.
Enforcement of occupational safety and health (OSH) at workplace 24,890
Enforcement of OSH at construction site 10,141
Enforcement of OSH in Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) 3,205
Enforcement and inspection of occupational health 10,924
Inspection of certificated machinery 211,651
Design approval of certificated machinery 11,550
Inspection of Major Hazard Installations 40
OSH promotion 5,877
Grand total 278,278

5
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

Table 4. Investigation of complaint, accident and occupational disease by DOSH Malaysia in

2018(until October).
Description No.
Accident 2,750
Fatal accident 189
Occupational disease and poisoning 2,704
OSH Complaint 1,068
Total number of investigation 6,711
Table 5 shows action taken by DOSH against errand employers until October 2018 [27]. Total
number of persuasive action (directive letters and notices) issued by DOSH are 65,405 whilst the total
number punitive action (compound and prosecution) done by DOSH are 1,011. The ratio between
persuasive and punitive strategies used by DOSH in that period is 65:1. The percentage persuasion is
used is 98.5% compared to 1.5% of punishment.

Table 5. Action taken by DOSH Malaysia against employers in 2018 (until October).
Description Directive Notice of Notice of Compound Prosecution
Letters/Surat Improvement Prohibition in court
Arahan (NOI) (NOP)
No. 39,623 13,670 12,112 787 224
Total 65,405 1,011
Ratio 65 : 1
Percentage 98.5% 1.5%
In table 6, the ratio DOSH officers use persuasion to the total number of activities is 1 to every 4.4
activities (1:4.4) whilst the ratio they use punishment to the total number of activities is 1 to every 281
activities (1:281).

Table 6. Comparison of the use of strategies by DOSH Malaysia in its

enforcement activities in 2018 (until October).
Description Persuasion Punishment
Numbers of all activities by DOSH
1 : 4.4 1 : 281
(Enforcement and investigation)

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, DOSH uses too much persuasion in its enforcement in manufacturing sector. As this
sector contributes the highest number of accident in Malaysia, DOSH should consider to use punishment
strategy more often in the future when carrying out OSH enforcement in this sector.
In order to achieve its vision and mission i.e. “to be the leader of Occupational Safety and Health”
and "to ensure safety and health at work" respectively [27], DOSH has to change its officers style of
enforcement which is seems to be too persuasive. DOSH has to study its officers’ perception towards
punishment strategy which according to [22], will act as individual deterrence and general deterrence so
that its objective to prevent industrial accidents and occupational diseases by the year 2020 through
reduction in rate of fatalities to 4.36/100,000 workers and reduction in rate of accidents to 2.53/1000
workers will be a reality [27]. By the way, year 2020 is just a few months away! Studying the
enforcement officers’ perception towards punishment strategy will give DOSH new ideas in getting

6
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

more compounds and prosecution against errands employers. This will therefore lead in greater
compliance to the law and lesser number of accidents in manufacturing sector.
Even if more punishment strategy will be used in the future, DOSH will not move away from its
corporate value i.e. "Firm, Fair and Friendly" [26], [27]. Being friendly does not mean that we have to
compromise on everything, moreover when we are dealing with safety and health matters.

Acknowledgement
This research work is fully funded by the Public Service Department, Government of Malaysia under
the Hadiah Latihan Persekutuan (HLP) programme.

References
[1] Monthly Manufacturing Statistics Malaysia, March 2019. Department of Statistics
Malaysia.https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/ct
[2] Rommel, A., Varnaccia, G., Lahmann, N., Kottner, J., & Kroll, L. E. (2016). Occupational injuries
in Germany: Population-wide national survey data emphasize the importance of work-related
factors. PLoS ONE, 11(2).
[3] Hui-Nee A. (2014). Safety Culture in Malaysian Workplace: An Analysis of Occupational
Accidents. Health and Environment Journal, 5(3), 32–43.
[4] Park, J. K., & Khai, T. T. (2015). Occupational Safety and Health Activities Conducted across
Countries in Asia. Safety and Health at Work, 6(2), 143–145.
[5] AKKP (2009). Akta Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan dan Peraturan-Peraturan Edisi
2009. Act 514. ISBN 967-70-1211-8.
[6] Akta Kilang dan Jentera dan Peraturan-Peraturan 1967. Edisi 2010. ISBN 978-967-70-1333-9
[7] Guidelines for Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Risk Control (HIRARC). Department
of Occupational Safety and Health. Ministry of Human Resource, Malaysia JKKP DP
127/789/4-47. ISBN 978-983-2014-62-1
[8] Husna C.H. (2018). Kajian Keperluan Latihan dalam Aspek Keselamatan dan Kesihatan
Pekerjaan Terhadap Guru Sekolah-Sekolah di Negeri Kelantan. Sarjana Sains. Universiti
Malaysia Kelantan.
[9] Harrison, J. (2012). Occupational Safety and Health in The United Kingdom: Securing Future
Workplace Health and Wellbeing. Industrial Health, 50(4), 261–266.
[10] Mitchell, M. A., & Schmidt, N. B. (2014). General in-situation safety behaviors are uniquely
associated with post-event processing. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 45(2), 229–233.
[11] World Health Organization. (2014). Types of Healthy Settings. Health Promoting Schools.
Healthy Settings, (1998), 1998–2000.
[12] Rountree, T. (2007). Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health. Health Physics (Vol. 81).

[13] Salminen S. (2015). Workplace Safety and Health Definition of Workplace Safety and Health.
International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences,727–732.
[14] JKKP, Jabatan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan (2017). Statistik Kemalangan Pekerjaan
Mengikut Sektor Sehingga Oktober 2017.
[15] Danish Ali et al. (2017). Safety Culture and Issue in the Malaysian Manufacturing Sector.
MATEC Web of Conferences 135, 00031 (2017). ICME’17
[16] Brown, R. (1994). Theory and practice of regulatory enforcement: Occupational Health and
Safety Regulation in British Columbia (pp. 63–91).
[17] Donald Black (1976). The Behaviour of Law. Academic Press Inc.
[18] George I. Balch (1980). The Stick, the Carrot and Other Strategies: A Theoretical Analysis of
Governmental Intervention. Law & Policy Quarterly. Vol 2, No. 1. Pp. 35-60.
[19] James Baggs et al. (2003). Workplace Health and Safety Regulations: Impact of Enforcement
and Consultation on Workers’ Compensation Claims Rates in Washington State. American

7
ICMER 2019 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 788 (2020) 012032 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/788/1/012032

Journal of Industrial Medicine 43:483–494 (2003).

[20] Andrew Hopkins (1994). Compliance with what? The Fundamental Regulatory Question.
Brit.J. Criminol. Vol.34 No. 4 Autumn 1994.
[21] Akta Kilang dan Jentera dan Peraturan-Peraturan 1967.
[22] John T. Scholz and Wayne B. Gray (1997). Can Government Facilitate Cooperation? An
Informational Model of OSHA Enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
41, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 693-717 Published by: Midwest Political ScienceAssociatio
[23] Hudson. The Purpose of Criminal Punishment. Ethics and the Criminal Justice System. Pp.103–
126.
[24] Opinions of The Lords of Appeal for Judgment In The Cause R v Chargot Limited (t/a Contract
Services) and others (Appellants) (On appeal fromthe Court of Appeal Criminal Division).
[25] Amall Raihan Abdul Razak et al. (2017). The Colloquium 10 (2017) pp.21-27. Construction
Industry Prosecution Cases Under Malaysian OccupationalSafety and Health Legislation.
[26] Jonathan John Mwalili. The Role and Function of Prosecution in Criminal Justice.
[27] Jabatan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan. Enforcement Uniformity Model (EUM).
[28] Laman Web Rasmi. Jabatan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan. Kementerian Sumber
Manusia. Diakses daripada http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.php/en/